Students are surprised to find out about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s proposals toward environmental issues.
A questionnaire addressing current environmental issues plaguing the world was sent out to this year’s presidential candidates. Clinton and Trump weighed in on issues such as climate change and energy.
Lauren Engley, senior in Animal Science and NextGen Climate secretary, considers climate change to be the most pressing issue that the presidential candidates should be talking about in regard to environmental issues.
Clinton’s response on the questionnaire regarding the issue of climate change was to set three goals she plans to achieve within the next 10 years: “Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term. Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world. Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks.”
Clinton also said she would launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities and rural communities that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency.
Engley is in favor of this proposal.
“A lot of people are weary about the cost of fighting this, but I think it's first of all worth it, and secondly, I think it will be economically beneficial in the long run," Engley said.
Megan Frisvold, junior in global resource systems, doesn't think Clinton's plan is aggressive enough.
"Trying to cut energy waste by a third is not going to be enough," Frisvold said. "We want to see actual change within the atmosphere and environment.”
In regard to climate change on the questionnaire, Trump responded: “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of ‘climate change.’ Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water.”
Trump went on to explain that we should perhaps focus on eliminating lingering diseases, increasing food production, developing energy sources and power production that alleviate the need for dependence on fossil fuel.
Engley linked Trump’s response to skirting around the issue of climate change.
“I think the point he’s trying to get at is that, why don’t we improve human lives and care about people more than the environment? I kind of understand where he’s coming from, but at the same time, I think climate change is directly impacting people already and will exponentially affect people," Engley said.
Engley believes Trump has been misled on what climate change means and how it will affect people, as he appears to view “climate change [as] a hoax."
Frisvold said Trump’s proposal is shocking considering he addresses clean water for people and eradicating diseases, because that’s not the type of thing she’d imagine him saying.
Both candidates were questioned about their energy strategies moving forward.
On the questionnaire regarding her energy strategy moving forward, Clinton responded: “I reject the notion that we as a country are forced to choose between our economy, our environment and our security. The truth is that with a smart energy policy, we can advance all three simultaneously."
Clinton went on to say that she would deliver on the pledge President Barack Obama made at the Paris Climate Conference, defend the Clean Power Plan and invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create well-paying jobs and careers.
Frisvold was content with Clinton’s energy strategy.
“I think what she said about how we shouldn’t have to choose between economy, environment and security … I think that’s a really big thing," Frisvold said. "Highlighting the Paris agreement is really important too."
Engley, however, wished that Clinton would address wind energy as a clean energy source.
Engley also believes that if Clinton takes office and people hold her accountable for these statements then we can achieve the goals outlined in her energy proposal.
“I think this is an issue that young people really care about, and so if young people go up to the polls and they’re the people that she needs to please, then she’ll be held accountable to these goals. But if the only people that vote are over 60 [years old], then this isn’t an issue they care about," Engley said.
Contrary to Clinton’s proposal, Trump responded that the goal of the American people should be to achieve energy independence. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source, including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels, Trump said.
“I think energy independence is important, but to me, it’s like at what cost?" Engley said. "I don’t think we need to be further exploring fossil fuels in this country. I don’t think that’s a long-term goal toward energy independence."
Engley concluded that Trump’s plans seem “very incomplete.”
“Comparing the two, I’d much rather be supporting clean energy, not expanding fossil fuels, and staying in the Paris agreements," Engley said. "I’m much happier with Clinton’s environmental plan."
After hearing Trump’s responses on environmental issues, Frisvold concluded, “I feel like all that we hear in the news is the negative stuff. I’m surprised to learn that [Trump] is more knowledgeable on the topics than I assumed he was."
Clinton and Trump’s Full responses from Clinton and Trump on science and engineering issues can be viewed at http://sciencedebate.org/20answers.